Johnson, Manley Dewayne
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Johnson was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under Tex. Penal Code § 29.03(a)(1).
- Judgment ordered payment of fines, court costs, and restitution; $234 was written in the Court Costs blank.
- Appellant challenged the trial court’s entry of a specific $234 court-cost amount on appeal.
- Court of Appeals deleted the $234 amount due to lack of a bill of costs in the record.
- Texas Supreme Court granted review to determine proper handling of court costs on appeal and record supplementation.
- Court holds that bases for court costs may be challenged on appeal even without trial-stage preservation and that record supplementation with a bill of costs is permissible; reinstates trial court’s judgment with costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation not required for basis of costs? | Johnson argues Mayer permits first-time appeal review. | State contends preservation required. | Claim may be raised on appeal; not forfeited. |
| Ripeness of reviewing bases of costs without collection attempt? | Johnson's claim is ripe to review. | State argues no ripe issue until collection attempted. | Ripeness exists; merits reviewed. |
| Record may be supplemented with a bill of costs? | Johnson argues no supplementation allowed. | State contends record cannot be supplemented. | Record may be supplemented with a bill of costs. |
| Validity of the supplemental bill of costs as truthfully a bill of costs? | Document in supplement is not a valid bill. | Document constitutes a bill of costs under Art. 103.001-103.006. | Document is a bill of costs for purposes of the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (challenge to bases of costs need not be preserved)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (costs and bill-of-cost procedures discussed)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discussed in context of court costs)
- Chambers v. State, 194 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1946) (supplemental materials not presented to trial court normally excluded)
- Lamb v. State, 931 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1996) (fingerprint card ex parte not permitted in record)
- LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Rules 34.5 cannot create appellate record; costs are distinguishable)